A response to evolutionists

Hi Delshad.I'll take up your challenge. The shift from reptilian oviparity (laying eggs) to mammalian viviparity (live birth) is not too great once you are able to appreciate that there are intermediates between the two extremes. Most reptiles lay eggs, but some retains it within their bodies (ovoviviparity); and there are some which have true viviparity, although not as elaborate as modern mammals. And the most primitive living mammals, the monotremes (platypus & echidna--both Australian natives). These living models are hints to the stages in the evolution of mammalian viviparity. Finally, mammalian embryos still develop an empty yolk sac, which is a vestigial organ inherited from their egg-laying ancestors

Okay, Delshad, so we agree on some terms. I am a Muslim too and I understand that Allah planted signs for the faithful to see and contemplate. Now look back to the reptile-mammal sequence and this time, look at the ages of the fossils. See a pattern there? The morphological change fits perfectly with the temporal sequence. Now think. Would Allah create them separately in such a manner, that He created in such a sequence that strongly hints a change? The signs, the ayats in nature, screams for an explanation! There is change and continuity between them. I believe that Allah is not a deceiver, and He tries to sent a scientific message to us.[btw i have suspected that you're a Muslim. Your arguments sound familiar...]

I won't press you into believing the Godless version of evolution. If your only problem with evolutionists are with those rejecting Allah, then I am at your side, brother. Personally I haven't really decided to believe if Allah guides evolution; my evolution view is close to the Deistic version where Allah created life and let it thrive its own way, but I am still curious about some details in the process.About the gradual transformation thing, what do you think of the reptile-mammal sequence? Is it not an example of a smooth gradation? The jawbones slowly migrated backwards and inwards while keeping its function. An arrangement made by The All-Knowing and All-Caring, which sustains every creature's life.

Yea, you're half right. Apart from the functions of the yolk sac you mention, it's still an ex-yolk sac. [OK, it wasn't vestigial. I call it 'redundant' now] Tell me, what caused The Designer to put a structure dangerously resembling a yolk sac in a creature which lays no eggs?

You post heavily. I'll try dissecting some parts.

quote:

---

However, all therapsida fossils clearly point to the fact that they are truly not mammals, not only by their jaw structure, but by their craniums, which are clearly not mammalian, but reptilian in nature.

​

A bigger problem in ever determining whether or not the therapsids can ever even be a true transition between reptile and mammals is the very nature of what reptiles and mammals are. Reptiles are cold blooded, they lay eggs with hard shells, they have scales on their skin, multiple bones in the jaw, and a single bone in the ear.

​

Mammals are warm blooded, they give birth to their young, have mammary glands, hair, and other significant soft body differences, besides a single lower jaw hinged with a single joint on each side, and three ear bones.

---

Teeth: Therapsids have differentiated teeth (Canines)
Eggs: Platypus lays eggs. Mammals retain a yolk sac.
Viviparity: Some reptiles bear live young.
Skull: Mammals and therapsids have synapsid-type skull, with a temporal fenestra (opening) behind the eye.
Jaw: One therapsid have a double jaw joint.Why do you say that therapsids are paraphyletic? Got sources/citations?[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 10-02-2002]

'Therapsids are paraphyletic'Oh, stupid me. Of course therapsids ARE paraphyletic. If they are to be monophyletic, therapsids should include their descendants the mammals! Glad you noticed that first!*you wouldn't be confusing paraphyletic with polyphyletic, would you?*

quote:

---

No, I meant "paraphyletic". That is, the Therapsids lack characters that their "presumed" descendants have.

​

The terms "paraphyletic", "polyphyletic", "monophyletic", were invented by evolutionists intent on organizing the data of the fossil record into patterns that look like evolution in their efforts to confirm Neo-Darwinism. As such, they give the illusion of evolution by the very implications of their intelligently assigned meanings. As a creationists, I do not use such terms. I find them and many other definitions used by evolutionists to be rather Orwellian, a newspeak that prevents people (especially students, but the unsuspecting public as well) from thinking in terms other than evolutionary.

---

PARAPHYLETIC: In biological taxonomy, a grouping of organisms is said to be paraphyletic if it does not represent all the descendants of some common ancestor. Most schools of taxonomy advocate that groups reflect phylogeny instead, and so view the existence of paraphyletic groups in a classification as errors. Taxonomic groups that do share a common ancestor are called monophyletic.
Paraphyly - WikipediaTherapsids do lack some mammalian characters. That's why not all of them are mammals. Mammals are, phylogenetically, nested within therapsids.Care to discuss about therapsid teeth? They have canines, incisors, etc., differentiated teeth. Mammals are the only other group with differentiated teeth.

Delshad. You still there?Care to join me? A guy called Wordswordman just attacked Islam in another thread, and I'm currently taking on him.http://EvC Forum: A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible. -->EvC Forum: A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.

So you accept that if several species can be put into a phylogenetic tree, they should be lumped into a baramin?Fine then, I'll agree with you. Humans and chimps and gorillas have been analysed in many phylogenetic analyses, and they always stay in the same branch on the phylogenetic tree. Therefore we are in the same kind as them, right?I wonder why other creationists say otherwise. I can agree with your definition.